Findlay MacAskill1, Su-Min Lee2,3, David Eldred-Evans4, Wahyu Wulaningsih5, Rick Popert4,6, Konrad Wolfe7, Mieke Van Hemelrijck5, Giles Rottenberg6,8, Sidath H Liyanage9, Peter Acher1,6. 1. Department of Urology, Southend University Hospital, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, UK. 2. Department of Urology, Southend University Hospital, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, UK. smlee84@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Weston General Hospital, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, UK. smlee84@gmail.com. 4. Department of Urology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. 5. Division of Cancer Studies, Cancer Epidemiology Group, King's College London, London, UK. 6. London Bridge Hospital, London, UK. 7. Department of Pathology, Southend University Hospital, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, UK. 8. Department of Radiology, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. 9. Department of Radiology, Southend University Hospital, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) has potential to increase the diagnostic utility of PSA, yet has had poor uptake in clinical practice. We aimed to determine the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging-derived PSAD (MR-PSAD) in predicting transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy (TPSB) outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men presenting for primary TPSB from 2007 to 2014 were considered. Histological outcomes were assessed and defined as: presence of any cancer or significant cancer defined as presence of Gleason 4 and/or maximum tumour core length (MCCL) ≥ 4 mm (G4); or Gleason 4 and/or MCCL ≥ 6 mm (G6). Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated to compare MR-PSAD and PSA. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-nine men were evaluated with mean age 62.5 ± 9 years, median PSA 6.7 ng/ml (range 0.5-40.0), prostate volume 40 cc (range 7-187) and MR-PSAD 0.15 ng/ml/cc (range 0.019-1.3). ROC area under the curve (95% CI) was significantly better for MR-PSAD than PSA for all cancer definitions (p < 0.001): 0.73 (0.70-0.76) versus 0.61 (0.57-0.64) for any cancer; 0.75 (0.71-0.78) versus 0.66 (0.62-0.69) for G4; and 0.77 (0.74-0.80) versus 0.68 (0.64-0.71) for G6. Sensitivities for MR-PSAD < 0.1 ng/ml/cc were 85.0, 89.9 and 91.9% for any, G4 and G6 cancer, respectively. CONCLUSION: MR-PSAD may be better than total PSA in determining risk of positive biopsy outcome. Its use may improve risk stratification and reduce unnecessary biopsies.
PURPOSE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (PSAD) has potential to increase the diagnostic utility of PSA, yet has had poor uptake in clinical practice. We aimed to determine the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging-derived PSAD (MR-PSAD) in predicting transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy (TPSB) outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men presenting for primary TPSB from 2007 to 2014 were considered. Histological outcomes were assessed and defined as: presence of any cancer or significant cancer defined as presence of Gleason 4 and/or maximum tumour core length (MCCL) ≥ 4 mm (G4); or Gleason 4 and/or MCCL ≥ 6 mm (G6). Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated to compare MR-PSAD and PSA. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-nine men were evaluated with mean age 62.5 ± 9 years, median PSA 6.7 ng/ml (range 0.5-40.0), prostate volume 40 cc (range 7-187) and MR-PSAD 0.15 ng/ml/cc (range 0.019-1.3). ROC area under the curve (95% CI) was significantly better for MR-PSAD than PSA for all cancer definitions (p < 0.001): 0.73 (0.70-0.76) versus 0.61 (0.57-0.64) for any cancer; 0.75 (0.71-0.78) versus 0.66 (0.62-0.69) for G4; and 0.77 (0.74-0.80) versus 0.68 (0.64-0.71) for G6. Sensitivities for MR-PSAD < 0.1 ng/ml/cc were 85.0, 89.9 and 91.9% for any, G4 and G6 cancer, respectively. CONCLUSION: MR-PSAD may be better than total PSA in determining risk of positive biopsy outcome. Its use may improve risk stratification and reduce unnecessary biopsies.
Authors: Jonas Busch; Kristin Hamborg; Hellmuth-Alexander Meyer; John Buckendahl; Ahmed Magheli; Michael Lein; Klaus Jung; Kurt Miller; Carsten Stephan Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Esther Mena; Stephanie A Harmon; Maria L Lindenberg; Stephen Adler; Anita T Ton; Joanna H Shih; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronnie C Mease; Martin G Pomper; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.959